Next story in The Ed Show

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: We‘ve got more on the NCAA banning of Indian mascots tonight, why women who flirt at work won‘t be getting a promotion any time soon. And I‘ll go one-on-one with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who is going to join us live.

Joining me now tonight via satellite, the Reverend Jerry Falwell. And joining me from just three feet away, the great Rachel Maddow.

Thank you both very much.

RACHEL MADDOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Hi, Tucker. Thanks.

First situation, Tony Blair toughens up Britain‘s stance on terrorism. Today, he proposed strict anti-terror policies that would allow the expulsion of foreigners who preach hatred, the closing of extremist mosques and the barring of entry to England of Muslim radicals.

Here is Mr. Blair himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We are today signaling a new approach to deportation orders. Let no one be in any doubt the rules of the game are changing.

You don‘t have the right to be in a country, any country that you‘re not from. I don‘t have the right to go to Riyadh and advocate the overthrow of the Saudi regime. And people who do it ought to be expelled. Good for the West for standing up for itself.

But, in this particular situation, considering what they‘ve been through, a double dose of what we have, maybe not as many casualties, but certainly a wakeup call, and they‘re doing the responsible thing. They‘re saying, if you‘re here to hurt us, you don‘t like us, you don‘t—you don‘t pay taxes here, you are welcome to leave.

MADDOW: I think that the British response, in terms of policing and apprehending people after this, has been laudable. We all know there‘s been a lot of pressure for something like this, an action that was taken today by Blair.

But if we know one thing about al Qaeda, it‘s that it‘s a stateless group. And I‘m not sure that expelling people and sending people all over the world actually protects countries anymore. I mean, one of the July 7 bombers in Britain was Jamaican. If we had expelled him to the Caribbean, would we be fighting them over there instead of over here? Al Qaeda is stateless. I‘m not sure that borders necessarily are the things that make the most difference.

CARLSON: I think...

FALWELL: I think, if we had expelled those 19 on 9/11 one day ahead of 9/11, it would have made a big difference.

MADDOW: But if we didn‘t—but if they weren‘t preaching—these guys—the guys on 9/11 weren‘t known as preaching extremists. They weren‘t people who had themselves known...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: But, look, the point is that we—that the British police and the British press, for that matter, and us, for that matter, have pinpointed a couple mosques in London that are essentially acting as recruiting organs for al Qaeda.

And so, the West, civilized society at some point, has to make the decision. Are we going to put up with this in the name of an abstract principle or are we going to protect ourselves and our way of life? And I think Blair has chosen the latter.

MADDOW: They‘ve made the de—I mean, they‘ve made the decision of what they‘re going to do. My question is, is it actually going to keep Britain any safer? And that‘s the question. And I think deporting people doesn‘t necessarily make the country any safer.

CARLSON: Better than nothing in this case.

Next up, a situation of political correctness runs completely amok. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, known as the NAA—NCAA—has announced new restrictions on what school mascots can be. From now on, the NCAA will not allow schools with names derived from Native American traditions to host championship events.

Players, coaches and cheerleaders will not be allowed to wear gear featuring names like chiefs, Indians or braves to NCAA championship events. Already, Florida State University, whose team nickname is the Seminoles, says it will challenge the ban. And good for them, because they have an agreement with the Seminole Tribe, the actual Indians in question, who say this is great that you‘re using our name.

And of course it is. When people cheer for a team, right, they‘re not mocking the name of the team. They‘re supporting it. They‘re endorsing it. They‘re imagining themselves to be part of it, right? And some of these, if I can just add, are not even Indian specific. The Hawaii Warriors can no longer use their name.

CARLSON: Actually, Red—the Redskins, actually, are the one team that I think you can make an argument that it‘s offensive.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: But how can you say that the tribe is offensive or the warriors?

MADDOW: It‘s offensive to make somebody a mascot based on their race. And if you did so a long time ago and you‘ve always had that mascot name and everybody loves it and it‘s a term of endearment, it‘s still not OK make somebody a mascot in terms of their race. And a publicly accountable organization, like the NCAA, is, at some point, when times change, going to come along and tell you you‘re an embarrassment. I just don‘t think it‘s that weird.

CARLSON: But what if—what if the—what if the people in question

say it‘s OK? What if the Seminoles, the actual—I mean, this is a bunch

of people who aren‘t Indians speaking for the Indians. So, how about let -

· let‘s let the Indians speak. If the Seminoles themselves say, great, we‘re all for being the mascot for Florida State, shouldn‘t that matter?

MADDOW: There was a—there was a school, I think, in Illinois—and I might be wrong in there—somewhere in the Midwest, that said, in response to this, we‘re going to be the fighting whities, because we want to point out that we think it‘s offensive that our local school has an Indian name. We‘re going to be the fighting whities.

A few years ago, the NCAA, in another time they didn‘t have much to do, decided that athletes, after scoring a touchdown who stopped to kneel and pray in the end zone or point with one finger to heaven, in any way giving tribute to God, that that would be disallowed. They made a rule against it.

And here at Liberty University, we have a football team that scores occasionally. And we brought suit against the NCAA and we won that. And now it‘s legal for any athlete—it‘s free speech—to—if they want to pray in the end zone when they score, they can do it.

CARLSON: Well, good for you.

FALWELL: And...

CARLSON: And pardon my ignorance, Reverend Falwell. What‘s the name of your team?

FALWELL: The Liberty Flames. And we—we start of this year with some tough opponents. And we—we are—we‘re 34 years old. We‘ll have 23,000 students this fall from 50 states and 80 nations.

CARLSON: Well, I imagine the pyromaniacs are going to be on your case for the name of your team.

All right, the SCOTUS situation may not be as black and white as it first appeared. John Roberts nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, once argued against such appointments for federal judges. Earlier this week, we found out that Roberts once did pro bono work helping gay activists win a landmark case before the Supreme Court. That was in 1996, when the court struck down a Colorado law allowing employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Now supporters and opponents of the nominee are wondering what it all means. Well, we don‘t know exactly what it means. We do know this wasn‘t a case he was paid to take. This is something he did for free, voluntarily. It‘s impossible believe—believe—to believe he would have done it if it violated his conscience. So, he had to, in some way, agree with it.

It makes me think that the people who have commented on this so far have no clue what they‘re talking about.

MADDOW: Hmm.

CARLSON: Conservatives, spurred on by the White House, have said, he‘s great; he‘s one of us.

They don‘t know that, right? And the left has gone completely bananas. The head of the Human Rights Campaign wrote a piece, the headline, “Anti-Gay Extremists Trying to Gain A Stranglehold on Government,” implying this guy is an anti-gay extremist. Neither side knows what it‘s doing.

Jerry Falwell, I notice you wrote a piece supporting Mr. Roberts. Are you rethinking that?

FALWELL: Oh, not at all.

You know, I—if I were an attorney, I‘d certainly fight for the right of gays or anyone else to be employed or be housed wherever they wished to be housed. I may not agree with the lifestyle. And I don‘t. But that has nothing do with the civil rights of that member of our—that part of our constituency.

John Roberts would probably have been not a very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans.

CARLSON: But wait a second. I thought conservatives are always arguing against special rights for gays. And the idea is that...

FALWELL: Well, housing and employment are not special rights. I think—I think the right to live somewhere and to live where you please or to work where you please, as long as you‘re not bothering anybody else, is a basic right, not a—not a special right.

MADDOW: I think—I‘m happy to agree with you on this.

I mean, I think that if you look at Romer v. Evans, it‘s pretty hard to say that you‘re against the decision in Romer v. Evans that was originally arrived at. I mean, Scalia and Thomas were definitely against it. But the fact is, this—this—this case was about...

CARLSON: And Rehnquist.

MADDOW: And Rehnquist. I think you‘re right there—was—this case was about whether or not you can put an ad in the paper that says, I want to rent this apartment, but no gays need apply, or, I want to put up a for-hire sign that says, no lesbians will be hired for this job. If you think that‘s an American value and that we ought to be supporting that, then you‘re with the minority in Romer v. Evans. If you‘re not, then you‘re on the side of John Roberts.

CARLSON: I‘m—of course, I‘m not even arguing that.

MADDOW: Right.

CARLSON: I‘m merely saying, this gives us a window into Judge Roberts‘ thinking and it suggests that he‘s not nearly as conservative as his critics and his supporters have suggested. And I think that, if he winds up being a Tony Kennedy clone on the Supreme Court, we shouldn‘t be surprised. I won‘t be.

FALWELL: Well, Tony—Tucker, I‘m very conservative. I think I‘m to the right of most people you know, but...

CARLSON: Not to the right of me, but yes.

FALWELL: But civil—civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or a conservative value. It‘s an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on.

MADDOW: I hope—I hope that, when your colleagues on the right get upset about this Roberts‘ revelation, that you‘ll speak out about that, because it‘s nice to hear you say it.

FALWELL: They‘re not upset. They are—they—the people I know on the right are very much for this guy. And while we don‘t know a lot about him, he‘s—he‘s got to be, with his record, his background—I met him when he worked for Mr. Reagan—he‘s got to be a healthy addition to the court.

CARLSON: All right.

Next up, what do politics, cable television shows and advertising have in common? Well, they make pretty strange bedfellows. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SNOOP DOGG, MUSICIAN: Dodge truck lasts as long as the (INAUDIBLE) double jizzle.

Plus, I‘ve the hookup, nephew. Sure.

LEE IACOCCA, FORMER CHAIRMAN, CHRYSLER MOTORS: You know, I‘m not too sure of what you just said. Now everybody gets a great deal.

A Chrysler spokesman is to cut through the clutter and get people not to change the channel. It will do that. It looks like a pretty good ad. Will it get them to buy Chryslers? Will people who like Snoop Doggy Dogg buy the Sebring?

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I suggest not.

Jerry Falwell, are you going to buy the Sebring based on this ad?

FALWELL: Well, I—I don‘t—I don‘t own a Chrysler, but I like Iacocca. And I suppose drug addicts and dope heads may buy automobiles. And maybe that‘s what they had in mind.

(LAUGHTER)

FALWELL: But I can‘t imagine it does very much good for them.

MADDOW: Well, I—you know, actually, Snoop said very publicly when he started coaching his son‘s football team...

When he started coaching his kid‘s football team, he stopped smoking pot. He gave it up very publicly. He said, I know I‘ve been known to do it in the past, but no more. So, maybe this is, you know, part of his redemption.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Oh, I don‘t care if he smokes pot or not. I just...

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: I just think that the target audience is maybe not the audience—probably, the audience more interested in Escalades than Sebrings. But what do I know?

CARLSON: Still ahead, many Americans have lost a pet due to illness or old age. So, wouldn‘t it be great if everybody could clone their beloved animals? Well, the head of the Humane Society is outraged by the mere suggestion. “Op Ed Op Ed” is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back.

Time for “Op Ed Op Ed.” We spent a very busy day reading just about every editorial page in the country. It was fun, though. We picked two the best we could find, to which the three of us will respond.

First up, earlier this week, Korean scientists announced they had cloned a dog. This was great news for dog lovers across America and the world. But Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, not impressed at all.

He writes this in “L.A. Times”—quote—“With millions of healthy and adoptable cats and dogs being killed each year for lack of suitable homes, it‘s a little frivolous to be cloning departed pets.”

Yes, it is a little frivolous, unless, Wayne, it‘s your dog, in the same way it‘s not a big deal if a child gets sick, unless it‘s your child. And for those of us who love dogs, this is answer to prayer.

I have noticed, I will say, that people who advocate on behalf of animals for a living tend to have a pretty abstract view of animals. And, for most dog lovers, there‘s nothing abstract about it. You want your dog to be around for as long as possible.

Mr. Falwell, what do you think

FALWELL: I have no problem with animal cloning. I have a great problem with human cloning.

And while I‘ve—I‘ve—I don‘t think I‘d spend that kind of money to clone any dog I have ever owned—and I‘ve owned lots of it, 17 at one time—at the same time, I don‘t see anything morally wrong about it.

MADDOW: I think -- 17 dogs at one time? Hunting dogs?

FALWELL: Oh, yes, I‘m a dog lover. And I—I judge people by whether they love dogs or not.

And my issue on this is that I‘m not exactly sure where the objection is to cloning. If it‘s a waste of resources, well, not necessarily if it‘s going to pay big health or scientific dividends. Is it weird? Well, a lot of things—I think “80s nostalgia is weird. A lot of things are weird, but I‘m not going to ban it.

The question is if it‘s dangerous. And, like with genetically modified crops, I‘m not sure that I want them to be set loose or put into the food supply without anybody knowing it. I think people should be able to decide whether they want expose themselves to it. But the safety concern is really the only part of cloning that concerns me.

CARLSON: Well, let‘s start with dogs and let‘s start very soon.

That‘s my feeling.

Well, this Saturday marks the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1865 (sic). In “The Atlanta Journal-Constitution” this morning, Andrew Young writes we can improve upon it by changing voting times.

He says people don‘t vote because they don‘t have time. He believes Election Day should be changed—quote—“We need to emancipate the day of the week that we vote. America could well benefit from moving Federal Election Day from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend of that month.”

His point is, people are too busy to vote. They‘re too busy to vote, too busy to cast absentee ballot, to vote online, as you can in a lot of states, to make the polls closing, which is really—they‘ll stay open for you, if you really need to. If you‘re too lazy to do all that, you can‘t be bothered, I don‘t want you deciding who my government is, right?

I mean, it is a good bar. We have government by the interested and the engaged and the well-informed. And I think we should keep it that way.

Jerry Falwell?

FALWELL: Well, I—I don‘t see any need to change the date. But if they do change it to the weekend, I hope they do it on Saturday and not put something else on Sunday, robbing people of church time and family time.

CARLSON: Well, you can be assured they‘re not going to put it on Sunday.

I mean, we all do, though, want more people to vote. We have got about 50 percent election participation in this country. The other 36 major democracies have something like in the 70s. And so, our voting participation is very low. And we‘d all like that to go up. Particularly, Democrats would like that to go up.

CARLSON: Not me. I‘m not interested in having it go up at all.

MADDOW: You don‘t want more people to be voting?

CARLSON: No. Every—people who can‘t be bothered to vote shouldn‘t vote. I want people to vote who are in—who know what they‘re voting for, who care enough to vote. If you don‘t care enough to vote, I don‘t want you controlling my life.

MADDOW: I think voter turnout in the United States is embarrassing.

And I do care about it and I do want more people to vote.

And maybe, whatever the personal reasons are why people don‘t vote are laudable or not. But I want there to be more voting participation. I think people should vote over three days. I think it should be on a weekday, but it should be a federal holiday. I think we should whatever we can to make people vote more. If you put it on the weekend, everybody will just not vote, because they‘ll be off on their weekend schedule.

CARLSON: Well, that‘s good. I don‘t want those people having any control over me whatsoever.

MADDOW: They‘re don‘t have control over you. They‘re participating with you in a group decision, Tucker.

CARLSON: Up next on THE SITUATION, Senator Rick Santorum joins us live to discuss his new book, a possible run for the White House and much more.

Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back.

It‘s been a while since a book by a politician has received as much attention as Senator Rick Santorum‘s latest, entitled “It Takes a Family.” The book is a broadside against the effects of liberalism on the American family, among other things. Not surprisingly, it has Santorum‘s political enemies outraged. It has also fueled speculation that the Pennsylvania Republican is running not simply for reelection in 2006, but for the White House two years later.

SEN. RICK SANTORUM ®, PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you, Tucker. Good to be with you.

CARLSON: Thanks.

Now, we were just talking about the news that emerged recently that—that Judge Roberts, now up for the Supreme Court slot, worked pro bono on behalf of gay rights. What was the first thing you thought when you heard that?

SANTORUM: What I thought is that, you know, when you work as a lawyer, you take a lot of clients and you do a lot of things for a lot of different reasons. And he may have agreed with that argument. He may have done it because his firm asked him to do it.

There are a whole lot of reasons that lawyers take cases. You know, I try to look at—at—at his record as a judge, look at what he—what he—what he has at least told me, look at his writings. And I feel very comfortable with him.

CARLSON: You don‘t think there‘s any—I mean, there‘s such a long history of Republicans nominating Supreme Court justices who turn out to be not just liberal, but assertively liberal.

SANTORUM: There‘s a long history, but not—in my opinion, there‘s a long history when—when presidents don‘t take their time or they don‘t take their—the nomination process seriously.

George Bush understands the consequences of this nomination. This isn‘t his dad, who just sort of passed off the process to—to—to his chief of staff and said, find somebody. This is something that the president campaigned on. This is something the president cares deeply about. This is something that the president, I know, has spent an enormous amount of his own personal time on, as well as his staff. He isn‘t going to make a mistake.

SANTORUM: I‘m pretty sure that Judge Roberts will be a judge who understands the role of the judiciary and the checks and balances and the balance of power.

He will understand—he used a term that I have never heard a judge, any—anybody coming in for a judgeship use. And that‘s the word modesty and humility when it comes to the court. That is—from the legislator‘s point of view, those are music—that‘s music to my ears. That means...

CARLSON: Well, from...

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: ... I understand—I understand the role of the court.

CARLSON: From the citizen‘s point of view, it‘s pretty appealing, too, I have to say.

Now, in the—in the—in the publicity—and you have received a lot—surrounding your book, there‘s been the allegation that you heap scorn upon mothers who work. Explain to me your position on working mothers. Is it wrong for women to—with kids to work outside the home?

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: No, it‘s not wrong for mothers to work outside the home.

What I basically said is—and I think very clearly said—is that, you know, being a mother and being a father are the most important jobs that you have, if you‘re a parent, and that we should at least honor motherhood and fatherhood, as much as we honor people who do radio talk shows or do—or are senators or doctors or anything else.

And—and we don‘t. And I—I just think that‘s wrong. And I think we—in a culture that is throwing more at our children, more things that are harmful to our children, that we actually need to spend more time parenting, not less. And all I‘ve said is that those who can should—should reexamine to see if they can spend more time when kids, you know, need to be parented and times when they‘re home without parents. That‘s all.

And that doesn‘t mean mothers or fathers—in fact, I was very neutral in the book on that. All I said is, this is an important job, probably more important than when I—you and I were being raised. And it‘s something that our society desperately needs, is more time at home with our kids.

And, by the way, most mothers and fathers would tell you they want more time at home, too.

CARLSON: Yes. That‘s absolutely right.

SANTORUM: And I lay out a lot of things that—that the government can do and society can do to make it easier on parents.

CARLSON: Well, one issue that you talk about in your book and you talk about in public quite a bit, embryonic stem cell research, it‘s a complicated issue. Even people who are adamantly opposed to abortion find it hard to get their minds around this.

Give me not the long explanation. Give me the shortest possible explanation for why it‘s wrong.

SANTORUM: It‘s taking of a human life. That‘s about it.

CARLSON: But this is—I mean, this is a human life that most people don‘t recognize as a human life..

SANTORUM: Well, you know, a human life is at the moment of conception. It‘s genetically human. And it is alive. So, it is a human life by definition.

And we‘ve had this legal construct under the—under Roe v. Wade that says, just because you‘re genetically human and you‘re alive doesn‘t make you a person under the Constitution and therefore, we can do whatever we want.

Remember, what we‘re talking about here is federal funding of this. We‘re not talking about whether it can be done or not. Anybody in America today can go out just take one of these embryos from an IVF clinic and destroy it, kill it and do research on it, right now. The only thing they can‘t do is get federal funds to do it.

CARLSON: Well...

SANTORUM: In my mind, that is a fairly small limitation on a very unethical practice.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Why keep—why keep—then why keep the limitation that small. I mean, if it‘s taking of a life, why not make it illegal?

SANTORUM: Because I—just the same reason that we have legalized abortion, but we don‘t fund abortions, because we believe—this is an area where the federal government and state governments have decided, most of them, have decided that they‘re not going to have taxpayer dollars, which a very sizable percentage of them don‘t agree with the morality of this situation, that we‘re not going to use their tax dollars or any tax dollars to fund this activity.

CARLSON: All right, one—one of your—finally, one of your former staffers I read described you not simply as a politician and a policy man, but as something of a Catholic missionary.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: Do you think that‘s right? And do you see yourself that way? What does that mean?

SANTORUM: No, I—well, I—well, first off, I don‘t know what it means. He‘s a former staffer. And I underline former, number one.

And, number two, you know, I see myself as someone who tries to do the best job I can for the people of my state and try to be accountable. That‘s why I wrote a book a year-and-a-half before maybe the toughest election of my career, because I think it‘s important—more important today than ever for politicians to come forward and say what they believe, why they believe it and be accountable to the people that they represent.

CARLSON: What about the election after that? If you were to lose reelection in ‘06, would you—could you still run for president?

SANTORUM: Oh, well, I‘m not worried about that. I‘m worried about running for reelection in ‘06. I‘m—I‘m running for the majority whip position, the number two position in the—in the United States Senate. You know, that‘s—those are two—two—two races. That‘s plenty for me.

CARLSON: All right.

Senator Rick Santorum, one of the most articulate members of the Senate, one of my favorite, thanks a lot for joining us. Appreciate it.

SANTORUM: Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Coming up, there‘s already an airport and a federal office building named in his honor, so, why are Washingtonians all in a huff over Ronald Reagan?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back to THE SITUATION. Sitting in tonight for the surviving members of Earth, Wind and Fire, I‘m Tucker Carlson.

Time to welcome back the Reverend Jerry Falwell and Rachel Maddow. I‘ll admit it, I‘m completely impressed by Rick Santorum, because he unapologetically states his beliefs. I don‘t think he‘s a hater. I don‘t agree with everything he says, though, I have to say, most of it.

But I think the reason he‘s hated so much is because he is the most articulate spokesman for a sort of intellectual conservatism.

MADDOW: I respect that you like him, but I don‘t see him as straightforward at all. That‘s the point—the idea that he‘s a straight shooter, I don‘t get.

Because you asked him about the stem-cell issue. You said, “Well, why shouldn‘t this just be illegal, then, if you think that this is basically murder”...

CARLSON: Yes, I agree. He didn‘t give as straight an answer as I would have loved.

MADDOW: Yes, well, he said, “Well, it‘s not illegal. We‘re not banning it for the same reason that we‘re not banning abortion,” and not saying, “I want to ban abortion”...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Oh, come on. I‘ve lived in Washington for 14 years and covered members of the Senate constantly. By the standards of the U.S. Senate, he‘s about as straight as you get.

MADDOW: Yes, but which is not a very low—which is not a very high standard. He shouldn‘t be lauded for being such a straight shooter. I don‘t see him that way.

CARLSON: But he is. Jerry Falwell, what did you think?

FALWELL: I‘d vote for him for president today. And put that in the bank. I like Rick. He‘s a bright, young star. He‘s yet to be proven in primetime, as you well know, but come ‘06, he‘ll get a chance to prove it, because he‘s up against a real tough opponent. I certainly hope he wins.

CARLSON: He‘s up against an opponent who‘s actually, you know, far more conservative—actually, a screaming right-winger, by the standards of the National Democratic Party—Bob Casey, Jr., the son of the two-term governor of Pennsylvania, who‘s, you know, anti-abortion and anti-federal funding for stem cells, et cetera.

MADDOW: Well to the right of the Pennsylvania populous on abortion, actually, both candidates.

CARLSON: Yes.

MADDOW: The population of Pennsylvania is pro-choice. They do not have a pro-choice candidate to choose in that election.

CARLSON: Well, I don‘t know, I mean, I think—you say that, but I mean, Santorum, who is the most articulate anti-abortion guy in government, has been elected there. Never lost an election in Pennsylvania.

MADDOW: Well, I hope that he runs for president, because I think it would be great for Democrats.

CARLSON: I hope he wins.

Next up, an update on a situation we first brought to you a week ago. The Steppenwolf Theater in Chicago has produced a pain called “The Pain and the Itch” in which a very young girl touches her crotch and is exposed to pornography and adult language.

Two child actors have played the role, but today one of them, 6-year-old Darragh Quinn Dolan, quit the production at, of course, her parents urging.

This is an update on a story that we talked about. I thought it was absolutely appalling. It‘s sort of a confusing update, in that the parents of this girl got in a dispute with the theater, by the people running the show, and their final word was they believed the theater had, quote, “threatened their daughter‘s career.”

I think it raises the question, you know, should you be allowed to put your child into an adult-themed play if she‘s in first grade? And I think my gut response is no. It‘s a complete outrage. It‘s sick.

And the rest of us sort of look on but don‘t do anything about it.

Someone ought to complain. It‘s disgusting.

MADDOW: The parents were there every single second, every rehearsal. The girl never saw the play. And the confusing part here is that the parents are saying, “We took our daughter out of this play because we were getting attacked in places like this show and in the headlines”...

CARLSON: Yes!

MADDOW: People were calling us bad parents. And we‘re not bad parents. We‘ve been very responsible.

Now, the people in the theater company are saying they wanted creative changes to the play. We don‘t know what the truth is. I think the parents were responsible in this case. They say they believe being there every second that their daughter was not exposed to any emotional harm. I believe the parents.

CARLSON: Have you seen this play, Jerry Falwell?

FALWELL: I have not. You know, I‘ve been on a protest personal and apart from everybody else against a bunch of the theater for the 53 years I‘ve been a Christian. And certainly, you can‘t throw the baby out with the wash.

I thank God for the movies, like “Chariots of Fire” and “The Passion of Christ,” but too many in the entertainment industry have just flat forgotten the American people and where American values are. Their argument is, “Well, they‘re representing it as it really is.”

That shouldn‘t be the effort of entertainers. It should be to lift the moral value system.

Well, the situation in Florida courts, one way or another insane. An attorney for the man charged with kidnapping, assaulting and murdering Carlie Brucia last year wants to argue that Joseph Smith, the murderer, was so intoxicated that he can‘t be held responsible for his actions.

The Florida law only allows that if the suspect has a prescription for the drugs he took. The attorney says this discriminates against people who use drugs without a prescription. In other words, it discriminates against crack heads, right? Crack heads are getting the shaft here according to the lawyer.

This will go nowhere, of course, until crack heads get their own lobby, right? You know, but until they do—you can tell literally in fifth grade who‘s going to be the trial lawyer, right? He‘s the little B.S. artist. He has nowhere to go but to the trial bar.

MADDOW: Listen, you can make this a trial lawyer case all you want. But what‘s interesting to me here is that you can plead voluntary intoxication if your drugs are prescribed, which means you can be lit on Oxycontin, prescribed, you know, if you‘re Rush Limbaugh or something, you‘re abusing it or whatever‘s happening, you can be lit on Oxycontin, and as long as it‘s prescribed, that‘s legal. That‘s kind of bizarre.

CARLSON: Well, that‘s because, presumably, if the drugs have been prescribed, you need them for medical reasons. It‘s not your fault.

MADDOW: But if you take something that makes you intoxicated, you can then say, “Listen, I‘m not going to be held accountable for the murder”?

CARLSON: You could raise the argument.

Jerry Falwell, do you buy any of this?

FALWELL: Well, whether it‘s prescribed medicine or non-prescribed medicine, if an animal takes a little girl like that and kills her, he should be executed as soon as possible.

FALWELL: ... but these people, I‘ll tell you—what‘s happened to the little children out there, and that‘s just one story. The news articles are filled with such horrible stories. And it‘s unreal that we take any other look at it, except that these people do not deserve to be in society.

CARLSON: All right.

Next situation, a plan to honor Ronald Reagan may be hitting a speed bump. A Republican member of Congress from Texas wants to rename Washington, D.C.‘s 16th Street Ronald Reagan Boulevard. His proposal does not sit well in the mostly Democratic city, which already has a Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center.

It doesn‘t sit well with me. I‘m a Ronald Reagan fan, but I don‘t think you should name public buildings, or accommodations, or thruways after figures who are in any way controversial, because, at some point, the situation is going to flip.

Democrats will be in charge of Congress. And then we‘re going to have a Jane Fonda Plaza. It‘s true.

CARLSON: I‘m serious, I mean, a law passed in Maryland—Maryland legislature—recently to rename BWI Airport Thurgood Marshall International Airport. That‘s offensive to a lot of people who were offended by Thurgood Marshall‘s decisions, including me.

And I just think we should be very, very, very reticent, hesitant before running around changing things after political figures.

Jerry Falwell, what do you think?

FALWELL: Well, you asked the wrong person. I‘m so prejudiced in favor of Ronald Reagan, I‘d be in favor of changing the name of Washington to Reagan City. I think he‘s the greatest president of the past 100 years. And he‘s the greatest man I‘ve ever known, and I miss him greatly.

MADDOW: It‘s funny, I was going to use the same argument, but on the other side of it. I was going to say we should just call D.C. Reaganistan, because that‘s all I think it—I mean, the P.R. campaign to rename things for Ronald Reagan is very impressive.

We‘re going to have him on money in my lifetime, that‘s the way it‘s going.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: It‘s a deliberate campaign. I mean, it‘s amazing—just the fact that Reagan is described as a good president and that he‘s hero to you, Reverend Falwell and to others, doesn‘t mean that his legacy is not controversial, as you pointed out.

I mean, for me, the greatest legacy of Ronald Reagan‘s presidency, growing up as a gay kid in the ‘80s in San Francisco, is AIDS and spending the first seven years of the AIDS epidemic never saying a word. And so to me, naming something after Reagan hurts me. But to you, he could be a hero.

CARLSON: Maybe when we have more time—and it may take a lot of time. You can explain how Ronald Reagan is responsible for AIDS.

MADDOW: How the president ignoring an epidemic that was killing thousands of people including lots I knew, that did hurt the problem. Yes, it did hurt.

CARLSON: Yes, I don‘t think that‘s a fair characterization at all. I don‘t think the government ignored AIDS. I think Reagan was too uncomfortable to use the word in public...

MADDOW: That‘s right.

CARLSON: ... but I still think, as an abstract question, we ought to be hesitant. As a conservative, I‘m against change.

MADDOW: As a conservative, could you be against renaming the street because of the deficit that he ran up?

CARLSON: No. I don‘t care to reargue the Reagan legacy. But I think winning the Cold War kind of trumps all.

But anyway, Jerry Falwell, thank you very much for joining us.

Rachel Maddow, as always.

MADDOW: Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON: See you Monday.

Coming up, at this point, Las Vegas is part of the mainstream. But there‘s an institution that nobody wants to be part of. Nobody wants to be part of Las Vegas, who, what, why, when and where? Max Kellerman will tell us when he joins us from Las Vegas. He‘ll explain all, in that very confusing tease.

Plus, snakes are creepy, so how creepy is a snake with two heads? Creepy enough to hiss and slither across the “Cutting Room Floor.” Be afraid. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON: Welcome back. It‘s time to welcome the “Outsider,” a man whose total news intake in any given day is pretty limited to Omar Sharif‘s bridge tips in the calendar section. Still, he has the juevos to play devil‘s advocate to me in a series of actual news stories.

Here he is, the only thing more popular in Vegas than the buffet at Circus Circus, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman.

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO HOST: Thank you very much. Quite an introduction.

All right. You may like Vegas, Max, but the National Football League does not. The NFL may bar NBC for promoting its hit show, “Las Vegas,” during its Sunday Night football games next year. The idea? Vegas is for gambling. And professional football, as everybody knows, has not a thing to do with gambling.

Except, it does. Maybe 1.5 billion bet on the Super Bowl alone, all total. I think the NFL should just admit it. Football is about gambling. They should adopt Vegas‘s attitude. Remember when they switched their ad campaign to “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas”?

KELLERMAN: Yes.

CARLSON: They embraced the sin. And the NFL should do the exact same thing.

KELLERMAN: OK, Vegas‘ campaign is good and Vegas is a growing business. The NFL could hardly be more successful than it already is. It may be the biggest success story in the history of American business next to maybe Microsoft.

The thing is such a multibillion dollar industry. On principle, I agree with you. But I couldn‘t argue that to Paul Tagliabue, the commissioner of the NFL, because he pretty much seems to know what he‘s doing, Tucker.

CARLSON: You know, that‘s actually, Max—I hate to give in such early in the game, but that‘s such a good argument, I‘m going to have to agree with you.

CARLSON: Don‘t fool with success. Don‘t redesign the Big Mac. New Coke was a mistake. I kind of agree with that.

KELLERMAN: Don‘t redesign the Big Mac. I like it.

CARLSON: Exactly.

All right, next one. Next time you‘re in court, watch your body language around the attorneys. That‘s the lesson on what happened in Chicago recently, when a 69-year-old great grandmother was eliminated as a juror in a high-profile civil trial because she smiled at one of the lawyers.

The city‘s lawyer alleged the lady looked at the defense attorney with what he called an adoring look. The woman later conceded she did compare the lawyer to the late Johnnie Cochran, something that apparently she meant as a profound compliment.

Now, there‘s a lot going on in this story, Max, but the bottom line is this: Smiling is good. We need more smiling in our culture. We need more politeness, more courtliness, more friendliness, right?

KELLERMAN: Yes.

CARLSON: You can‘t criminalize smiling. If an old lady smiles, good for her.

KELLERMAN: OK, that sounds reasonable on its face. However, the defense attorney must have requested a Batson hearing, which means that you can challenge the elimination of the juror.

And the quote that came out was she said, “He reminds me”—the defense attorney, who was African-American—“of the great African-American defense attorney Johnnie Cochran.” She so clear—I mean, that is prejudicial. That‘s not just smiling, “OK, I‘m smiling at someone.” She idolizing this guy.

CARLSON: Yes, but she said that later, after she was already bounced off for smiling, right? So, in other words, you can‘t know, just because somebody smiles—and, again, we want that kind of cheery atmosphere, even in the jury box.

KELLERMAN: But the smile indicated it. In other words, a jury—a trial lawyer can eliminate certain number of jurors, you know, preemptory elimination of those jurors.

But if they‘re challenged, they have to come up with a redefinition—they have to be able to articulate a reasonable position why they did it. So when challenged, clearly they articulated a reasonable position. This woman is prejudiced towards this guy. She likes him, and it turned out to be true.

CARLSON: I still think it‘s a slippery slope. First, you go after the smilers, then it‘s the gigglers, then it‘s the chucklers, then we‘re all in trouble.

KELLERMAN: Yes, then I‘m out of there.

CARLSON: Well, Max, you built quite a career by flirting with your bosses over the years, but it‘s different for women, it turns out. A new Tulane study suggests women who flirt with their bosses get fewer pay raises and fewer promotions.

Forty-nine percent of 164 female MBAs said they had tried to advance their careers by doing things like crossing their legs provocatively or leaning over a table to let men look down their shirts. The other 50 percent of the women surveyed said they never engaged in any such activity and, in fact, earned more money and got more promotions.

Well, I believe—let‘s stipulate this study is true. I totally believe it. And I think it‘s completely wrong. What‘s going on here, Max, is male supervisors are so completely paranoid about being accused of sexual harassment, that when a woman flirts with them, or in any way acts female, or appealing, or cheery, or effervescent, the man is terrified of seeming like he favoring her so he pays her less.

She‘s penalized by the standard created by feminists. And it‘s wrong.

KELLERMAN: OK, Tucker, I‘m up 2-0 on you today. I‘m about to go for the clean sweep, clean sweep, and you‘re going to admit it.

On its face, right, that seems perfectly reasonable that that‘s—but what about this: What about if the women who flirt do so because they feel they need to compensate for the fact that they‘re not qualified? I think it‘s reasonable to assume that the type of women who flirts will tend to be less qualified than the type who doesn‘t, who doesn‘t feel she needs to.

So maybe the flirting actually does help them. Maybe the ones who flirt would be even worse off if they didn‘t flirt.

CARLSON: No, no, they‘re being discriminated against. The grouchy women are actually getting the benefit of this discrimination, right? These are women who are going the extra mile, they‘re trying to make the workplace a happier environment, they‘re being fully female. They‘re letting themselves be who they really are, and they‘re being penalized for it.

If anything, we need a federal law to protect the rights of on-the-job flirters.

KELLERMAN: Tucker, I thought my argument would convince you. Apparently, it didn‘t. The flirters are the ones who feel less secure because they‘re less competent. Therefore, from that group, you‘d expect to find less accomplishment, lower pay scale, huh?

CARLSON: There you are attacking the victim again, Max.

KELLERMAN: All right, you know what, 2-1. I give you the last argument.

CARLSON: Two-to-one. You still win the night.

Max, good luck in Las Vegas.

KELLERMAN: Hopefully, I‘ll be as big a winner in Vegas.

CARLSON: I‘ll see you Monday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, whatever happened to needlepoint and shuffleboard? You won‘t believe what they‘re doing in a Florida retirement communities these days. Extreme grannies visit the “Cutting Room Floor,” next.

Well, I don‘t know what your grandma is doing this summer, but 92-year-old Lucille Borgen is shredding it behind a speed boat. Borgen just celebrated her 92nd birthday yesterday, just a day after winning a water skiing competition in Palm Beach, Florida.

Look at that slalom technique. She‘s been skiing for 52 years, won more than 500 water skiing records.

GEIST: Tucker, not only is she 92 years old, she‘s beaten cancer, she‘s beaten polio, she‘s blind in one eye, and she‘s a world water skiing champion. I feel so insufficient. I have to do something with my life.

CARLSON: But she also has good biceps.

GEIST: My goodness. And she looks good. She‘s 92.

CARLSON: She‘s actually amazing.

GEIST: Congratulations.

CARLSON: Well, as long as you‘re getting rid of the kids for a few weeks at summer camp, why not send their stuffed animals packing, as well? A German company is offering vacation packages for teddy bears and other stuffed toys.

That‘s right. You can ship your teddy bear to Munich, and it will spend the night in a luxury apartment and see all the sights of the city. The bears are sent home with photos of their vacation.

GEIST: Well, Americans are participating in this. It costs $185 for a week. I have an idea: If you pay $185 to send your teddy bear, you should also be sent in a crate to Munich, never to return, never.

CARLSON: Well, you basically are German at that point. That‘s so, like, post-modern, you know what I mean?

GEIST: You know the historic landmarks they send your teddy bear to, the Hard Rock Cafe? I‘ll just send them to the one in Albuquerque.

CARLSON: But how do you know they‘re actually sending—All right, we‘ve come across our fair share of two-faced snakes in life, but here‘s an actual two-faced snake. The rare two-headed corn snake was on display in Spokane, Washington today. Another two-headed snake was found in Massachusetts earlier this week.

Its owner named one head Tom Brady, the head Bill Belichick, after the New England Patriots quarterback and head coach.

GEIST: That‘s a heck of a tribute to the Super Bowl champs. I‘m sure they‘re tickled. You mentioned two-faced snakes. Do you want to mention any names or are you all set?

CARLSON: Well, there‘s an intoxicating situation flowing through the rivers of Italy right about now. Scientists have covered that the Poe river in northern Italy is teeming with cocaine residue. Researchers were testing Italian rivers and sewage systems for levels of a byproduct of cocaine use, and they were shocked at the amounts found in the Poe valley, which includes the city of Milan.

Scientists estimate there are about 40,000 doses of cocaine taken in the valley every single day.

GEIST: Wow, that‘s a lot of blow, but this was not in the study. It came in second only to the creek behind Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston‘s house. And that was not included in this research.

CARLSON: It was implied, I think.

Well, we‘ve all heard of the slogan, “No shirt, no shoes, no service”

· anyway, you know the policy—nobody ever said anything about no pants.

So it‘s hard to fight the man who strolled into a Subway sandwich shop in Iowa the other night wearing nothing but a ski mask.

The woman working the counter said the stark naked man didn‘t threaten her or attempt to rob the store. As one cop put it, quote, “I‘m not sure what he‘d rob it with.”

GEIST: Oh, was that an insult about the man‘s eyes? I think it was.

I want to know, where was Jared on that night? I think he‘s lost so much weight, he‘s just wandering the heartland nude, dropping in on the franchises to check up on everybody.

CARLSON: Willie Geist, thank you. I think you‘re going to be even better at 11:00.

CARLSON: Anyway, that‘s THE SITUATION for tonight. Thanks for watching. One final reminder: We‘ve said it, but we‘ll say it again, a new and improved SITUATION comes at you live this coming Monday at 11:00 p.m. Eastern, 8:00 Pacific. Hope to see you then. It‘s going to be great.

Up next is “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY” with Joe Scarborough—Joe?

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST, “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY”: Thanks a lot, Tucker.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

END

Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.